DOCSLIB.ORG

Die Phantasie Gottes: an Analysis of the Divine Ideas in Deity Theories & Brian Leftow, with a Proposed Synthesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Die Phantasie Gottes: an Analysis of the Divine Ideas in Deity Theories & Brian Leftow, with a Proposed Synthesis LIBERTY UNIVERSITY DIE PHANTASIE GOTTES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIVINE IDEAS IN DEITY THEORIES & BRIAN LEFTOW, WITH A PROPOSED SYNTHESIS MASTER’S THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES BY NATHAN AUSTIN DOWELL The poet's eye, in fine frenzy rolling, Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven; And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. - Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream, 5.1.12-17. 1 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Brian Leftow first of all. The chances of him ever becoming aware of anything here are very small but I have to acknowledge him, nonetheless. From everything I have read and seen in lectures, he appears to be a brilliant, original and thorough thinker. His intellectual rigor, humility and passion for God and His supremacy in all things make him a preeminent Christian philosopher for a philosophy student like myself to strive to imitate in my work. It is unfortunate that tone can be lost in writing so I ask the reader to subliminally preface all my critical remarks of his work with a sincere “with all due respect.” I owe a great debt here to Leibniz, Kant, and Spinoza, three prolific German thinkers in whose honor I made the title for this thesis. They both set me on this path (Leibniz) and caused me to change directions while on it (Kant and Spinoza). Some personal friends and family: my dad for his passion for Christ and doing his best to impart that to me; my brothers Joseph and David for their support and insight in conversations on these issues; Scott Panida, one of the most encouraging and inquisitive men I know; Brendan Hegarty for thoughtful conversations; Jonathan Wells, Joseph Gibson, Matt Nevius, Will Green, Shaun Smith and Canaan Suitt, who not only all spoke with me about and/or read over sections of this paper but who also made my time in the M.A.P.S. at Liberty University rich in many ways; Dr. Robert Hughes, who was initially responsible for my interest in philosophy, continuation in academia and desire to integrate imagination and theology; the professors at Liberty University, especially Dr. Martin, Dr. Provenzola and Dr. Hinkson, who challenged, inspired and encouraged me from the day I met them and were exemplars, par excellence, of not only Christian philosophy at its finest, but also godly men who I had the joy and privilege of studying under and following. Ironically, there is no footnote where one will see, “Thanks to Dr. Provenzola for this point,” and this is drastically misleading. It is ironic because (1) he, along with Dr. Martin, had such an incalculably tremendous influence in forming this thesis and (2) because of his emphasis on the implicit (himself now an instance of that). His passion for the role of imagination in philosophy and theology is as contagious as it is compelling. Above the rest, I thank my wife Ashley, who edified me in the hard times of the program and rejoiced with me in the good times. I thank God every day that she is in my life and it is a constant grace that she faithfully loves me in spite of my many faults. Lastly, I thank the triune God, without whom, in the spirit of Leibniz, this thesis would not exist or even be possible. All other praise to the others above is indirect praise to the Other above all. I am in awe of just how creative and imaginative He is, the greatest manifestation of His creativity being in the story of the gospel of Jesus Christ, our beautiful hope, love and Lord. I will not do justice to Him here or in a thousand pages or lifetimes but for a glimpse of His glory, I would willingly spill every drop of ink. No minute spent in pursuit of the Great Pursuer is a moment wasted and I pray that the journey taken in these pages is one with Him at the end. 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................2 Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................................6 I. Opening: A Tale of Three Creative Siblings.....................................................................6 II. Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................8 III. Statement of Purpose.....................................................................................................10 IV. Statement of the Importance of the Problem.................................................................11 V. Statement of Position on the Problem............................................................................12 VI. Limitations....................................................................................................................12 VII. Method.........................................................................................................................14 A. Research Methods .............................................................................................14 B. Tests or Questionnaires......................................................................................14 C. Data Analysis......................................................................................................14 VIII. Chapter Divisions and Summaries.............................................................................15 A. Chapter Divisions...............................................................................................15 B. Summary of Each Chapter..................................................................................15 IX. Research Sources..........................................................................................................17 X. Results............................................................................................................................17 Chapter 2: Deity Theories & Their Problems............................................................................19 I. A Brief History of Deity Theories...................................................................................19 A. Middle Platonism and Early Christian Thought ................................................19 B. Similitude and Simplicity in Aquinas.................................................................21 C. Leibniz’s Monadology........................................................................................26 D. Spinoza’s Pantheism...........................................................................................29 E. Kant’s Natural Theology.....................................................................................31 3 F. Some Initial Concerns for Kant and the Tradition He Represents......................34 II. Leftow’s Critiques of Deity Theory...............................................................................39 A. Necessary Truths and Their Ontologizers .........................................................39 B. The Negative Project I: Against General Arguments from Deity......................42 C. The Negative Project II: Against Decomposing Deity.......................................46 D. The Positive Project: Why Deity Theories Should Be Avoided........................51 Chapter 3: A Half Step with a Long Stride: Brian Leftow’s Non-Deity Theory...................56 I. Exegesis of Leftow’s Theory...........................................................................................56 A. What it is in God to Do.......................................................................................56 B. The Biggest Bang of All.....................................................................................59 C. Permitting and Preventing States of Affairs.......................................................64 D. Cleaning Up: Modal Logic and Other Concepts in Leftow’s System................67 E. On God and Necessity… and Possibility............................................................72 F. Anticipated Objections........................................................................................73 II. The ‘In Him’ Locution and Complications....................................................................75 A. Bohn, Forrest, Oppy and Craig vs. Leftow........................................................75 B. Final Analysis of the ‘in Him’ Locution............................................................79 Chapter 4: Imagination Bodying Forth: A Leftowian Deity Theory?.....................................83 I. A General Defense of Deity Theories: Brutality for Brutality........................................83 II. An Alternative Imaginative Account.............................................................................86 A. Imagination and God..........................................................................................86 B. Imaginative Leaps I: Nothing and General Possibilities....................................91 C. Imaginative Leaps II: Specific Natures and Leftow’s Leaky Boat....................98 D. Imaginative Leaps III: Vagueness and Definite Creature Concepts................103 E. A Different Problem of Evil.............................................................................108 4 III. Concluding Remarks...................................................................................................111 A. To Infinity… and Beyond? Are there further Leaps?......................................111
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Absolute Identity and the Trinity
    Absolute Identity and the Trinity Chris Tweedt Trinititarians are charged with (at least) two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son is God, so it seems to follow that the Father is the Son. Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion, which seems contradictory. Second, the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Holy Spirit is a god, but the Father isn't the Son, the Father isn't the Holy Spirit, and the Son isn't the Holy Spirit. This seems to entail that there are three gods. Again, Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion. There are two main views of the Trinity that are designed to (among other things) avoid these alleged contradictions. These views, however, have problems. In this paper, I present a resolution to these alleged contradictions that a Trinitarian proponent of divine simplicity can endorse without succumbing to the problems of the two main current views. What is surprising about the view I'll propose is that it is helped by divine simplicity. This is surprising because many current Trinitarian views either reject divine simplicity or find it a difficult doctrine to maintain. In section 1, I'll better describe the alleged contradictions the Trinitarian needs to dispel and the way in which the Trinitarian needs to dispel these alleged contradic- tions. In section 2, I'll give the two main ways to dispel these alleged contradictions and give the problems with these views. In sections 3{5, I'll propose and defend a view that dispels the alleged contradictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Endorsement by Dr Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Closer to Truth
    Closer To Truth Robert Lawrence Kuhn May 25, 2020 To Whom It May Concern: It is a pleasure to provide our wholehearted endorsement of the ZerOrigIndia project and to offer Closer To Truth’s public outreach and promotional resources to support the vital research and understanding of “Zero” as it will no doubt emerge from the ZerOrigIndia project. The concept of Zero is both a critical event in intellectual history and a milestone in the development of mathematics, science and technology. The exploration of zero’s origin, culturally and linguistically as well as mathematically and philosophically, could elicit novel ideas and new ways of thinking. Moreover, the broader philosophical significance of Zero reveals transcendental ideas of Nothing, Emptiness, Void, Blank as features of reality to be apprehended and appreciated and perhaps applied to entirely new categories of thought. Indeed, “Nothing” is a prime Closer To Truth theme. The outstanding group of scholars and thinkers devoted to ZerOrigIndia should encourage our support. Closer To Truth will publish and promote relevant research from the ZerOrigIndia project. As background, Closer To Truth (CTT), featuring world-renown scientists and philosophers, is the definitive PBS/public television series and web archive on Cosmos (cosmology/physics/mathematics, philosophy of science), Consciousness (brain/mind, philosophy of mind) and Meaning/God (theism/atheism/agnosticism, philosophy of religion, critical thinking). The Closer To Truth YouTube channel, offering high intellectual content, is running at >1 million views and >11 million minutes watched per month; >125,000 subscribers; >60% outside the US. You may use my endorsement to support the ZerOrigIndia project in any way deemed appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 3 7-1-2020 An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity Katherin A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rogers, Katherin A. (2020) "An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.3.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 AN ANSELMIAN APPROACH TO DIVINE SIMPLICITY Katherin A. Rogers The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is an important aspect of the clas- sical theism of philosophers like Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Recently the doctrine has been defended in a Thomist mode using the intrin- sic/extrinsic distinction. I argue that this approach entails problems which can be avoided by taking Anselm’s more Neoplatonic line. This does involve AQ6 accepting some controversial claims: for example, that time is isotemporal and that God inevitably does the best. The most difficult problem involves trying to reconcile created libertarian free will with the Anselmian DDS. But for those attracted to DDS the Anselmian approach is worth considering.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Spring 2020 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death Christopher Choma [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Christianity Commons, Epistemology Commons, European History Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Metaphysics Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Choma, Christopher, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death" (2020). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 1048. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/1048 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death By: Christopher Choma Sponsored by: Dr. Joseph Li Vecchi Readers: Dr. Howard Ducharme Dr. Nathan Blackerby 2 Table of Contents Introduction p. 4 Section One: Three General Views of Human Nature p.
    [Show full text]
  • Events and the Nature of Time: Seth Lloyd Source URL
    Events and the Nature of Time: Seth Lloyd Source URL: https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/55447 Transcript - Long Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Seth, we're both at this – start again. Seth, we're both at this FQXi Conference in Banff, this beautiful area, um, about the physics of events, the importance of events and understanding what physics is, and one of the topics that we're looking at is the nature of time and how events can help us understand what time really is. How – how does that work? How can events help us understand what time is? Seth Lloyd: Well, now, that is something that unfolds in time, like a clock ticking or a – an electron moving from here to there, or a bit flipping in a computer. Or, you know, just our thoughts moving on and our conversation progressing. Um, now time is a mysterious thing and we don't understand it well. Heraclitus said that time is like a river, like this beautiful river here [clears throat], the water flowing and then time ever moving onward and, um – ah, but what makes us feel and perceive that time is going? Um, so, ah – the first answer is I don't know. Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Almost every question is the same. [Laughter.] Seth Lloyd: Yeah, um, but – but there are, ah, different eras of time. There's a perceptual era of time where we don't know something and then we know – know something that we didn't know. This is about getting information. Um, there's a – a conversation, talking back and forth, interacting, where – where you tell me some information, I get the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Why This Universe? Toward a Taxonomy of Possible Explanations
    28 viewing cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, and theologians, asking them, among other ques- Why This tions, “Why This Universe?” From their many answers, and from my own night musings, I have constructed a taxonomy5 that I present here as a heuristic to help get our minds around this Universe? ultimate and perennial question. The Problem to be Solved Toward a Taxonomy In recent years, the search for scientific explana- tions of reality has been energized by increasing of Possible Explanations recognition that the laws of physics and the con- stants that are embedded in these laws all seem ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN exquisitely “fine tuned” to allow, or to enable, the WHEN I WAS 12, IN THE SUMMER BETWEEN existence of stars and planets and the emergence seventh and eighth grades, a sudden realization of life and mind. If the laws of physics had much struck such fright that I strove desperately to blot differed, if the values of their constants had much it out, to eradicate the disruptive idea as if it changed, or if the initial conditions of the uni- were a lethal mind virus. My body shuddered verse had much varied, what we know to exist with dread; an abyss had yawned open. Five would not exist since all things of size and sub- decades later I feel its frigid blast still. stance would not have formed. Stephen Hawking Why not Nothing? 1 What if everything had presented the problem this way: always been Nothing? Not just emptiness, not just Why is the universe so close to the dividing line blankness, and not just emptiness and blankness between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely? forever, but not even the existence of emptiness, In order to be as close as we are now, the rate of not even the meaning of blankness, and no forev- expansion early on had to be chosen fantastically er.
    [Show full text]
  • © 2017 Luis H. Favela, Ph.D. 1 University of Central Florida PHI
    1 University of Central Florida PHI 3320: Philosophy of Mind Fall 2017, Syllabus, v. 08222017 Course Information ¨ Title: Philosophy of Mind ¨ Course number: PHI 3320 ¨ Credit hours: 3.0 ¨ Term: Fall semester 2017 ¨ Mode: Web Instructor Information ¨ Name: Luis Favela, Ph.D. (Please refer to me as “Dr. Favela” or “Professor Favela.”) ¨ Email: [email protected] ¨ Website: http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/staff.php?id=1017 ¨ Office location: PSY 0245 ¨ Office hours: Tuesday and Thursday 1:30 – 3:00 pm Course Description ¨ Catalogue description: Recent and contemporary attempts to understand the relation of mind to body, the relation of consciousness to personhood, and the relation of psychology to neurobiology. ¨ Detailed description: This course introduces some of the main arguments, concepts, and theories in the philosophy of mind. Some of the questions addressed in the philosophy of mind include: “What are minds made of,” “How does the mind relate to the brain,” and “what is consciousness?” Answers to these questions have consequences for a wide range of other disciplines, including computer science, ethics, neuroscience, and theology. The first part of the course covers the main philosophical views concerning mind, such as dualism, behaviorism, identity theory, functionalism, and eliminativism. The second part of the course focuses on consciousness, and questions such as: “Does ‘consciousness’ exist,” “Is consciousness physical,” and “Can there be a science of consciousness?” Student Learning Outcomes ¨ Students will be able to describe the main philosophical views concerning the mind. § Students will be able to reconstruct the arguments underlying the main philosophical views concerning the mind. § Students will be able to articulate their positions concerning whether or not they agree with the conclusions of the arguments behind the main philosophical views concerning the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity
    Why the One Cannot Have Parts 1 Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity, Ontological Independence, and Perfect Being Theology By Caleb Murray Cohoe This is an Author's Original/Accepted Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the Version of Record appears in: Philosophical Quarterly (Published By Oxford University Press): Volume 67, Issue 269, 1 OctoBer 2017, Pages 751–771: https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx008 Abstract: I use Plotinus to present aBsolute divine simplicity as the consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which most theists are already committed. I employ Phil Corkum’s account of ontological independence as independent status to present a new interpretation of Plotinus on the dependence of everything on the One. On this reading, if something else (whether an internal part or something external) makes you what you are, then you are ontologically dependent on it. I show that this account supports Plotinus’s claim that any entity with parts cannot Be fully independent. In particular, I lay out Plotinus’s case for thinking that even a divine self-understanding intellect cannot Be fully independent. I then argue that a weaker version of simplicity is not enough for the theist since priority monism meets the conditions of a moderate version of ontological independence just as well as a transcendent But complex ultimate Being. Keywords: aseity, simplicity, ontological dependence, perfect Being, monism, Platonism 1. Introduction This paper draws on the works of Plotinus to present absolute divine simplicity as the natural consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which the theist (and the perfect Being theologian in particular) is already committed.
    [Show full text]
  • Atheism's Best Arguments? (Part 1): David Bentley Hart Source URL
    Atheism's Best Arguments? (Part 1): David Bentley Hart Source URL: https://www.closertotruth.com/interviews/57486 Transcript - Long Robert Lawrence Kuhn: David, you believe in God and argue for God's existence. Part of that is attacking those who would deny God's existence, atheists. So, when you hear atheistic arguments, what are your reactions to them? David Bentley Hart: It depends on how good they are. In recent years, we've seen a little cottage industry spring up in marketing very bad arguments for atheism, so, then my reaction is ill-concealed scorn, right? Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Let's just differentiate. Let's start with the bad arguments. What are some of those? David Bentley Hart: I mean, the sort of arguments you would find in Richard Dawkins in which he clearly misunderstands claims about ontological contingency and thinks you can conjure them away by having this efficiently comprehensive cosmology, or when he says something like, evolution answers the question of existence, that's actually something he says. I mean, you realize there that you're dealing with category errors so profound that they verge on the infinite. So, those are bad arguments. And in general, my list of fine atheist philosophers in the 20th Century is a small one. Mackey would probably be it, really. Sobel, in the English-speaking world. I think there was a greater age of atheism in the 19th Century. Profounder arguments, simply because they were based on a deeper knowledge of what they were attacking. Nietzsche. Nietzsche understood Christianity. Not every aspect of it.
    [Show full text]
  • Madness, Reason, and Truth: an Examination of Two Philosophical Debates
    W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 7-2012 Madness, Reason, and Truth: An Examination of Two Philosophical Debates Catherine Leigh Robey College of William and Mary Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Robey, Catherine Leigh, "Madness, Reason, and Truth: An Examination of Two Philosophical Debates" (2012). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 534. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/534 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Madness, Reason, and Truth: An Examination of Two Philosophical Debates A thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirement for an award of honors in the department of Religious Studies from The College of William and Mary by Catherine Leigh Robey Williamsburg, VA May 3, 2012 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 5 II. HEGEL, PLATO, AND KIERKEGAARD: AN ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECTIVITY OF AN OBJECTIVE PHENOMENON 8 INTRODUCTION 8 HEGEL – THREE MAIN FORMS OF MADNESS 9 “IDIOCY” 9 “MADNESS PROPER” 11 “MANIA OR FRENZY” 12 HEGEL – REASON, UNIVERSALITY, OBJECTIVITY, AND THE DOCTRINE OF MEDIATION 13 PLATO AND “DIVINE MADNESS” 16 “MADNESS OF PROPHECY” 17 “MADNESS OF THE MYSTIC” 18 “MADNESS
    [Show full text]
  • Christian Afterlife
    A contribution to the Palgrave Handbook on the Afterlife, edited by Benjamin Matheson1 and Yujin Nagasawa. Do not cite without permission. Comments welcome. CHRISTIANITY AND THE AFTERLIFE Joshua R. Farris, Houston Baptist University https://www.academia.edu/21851852/CHRISTIANITY_AND_THE_AFTERLIFE “I remain confident of this: I will see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.” (Psalm 27:13) “I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.” (Philippians 1:20-21) “As all Christians believe in the resurrection of the body and future judgment, they all believe in an intermediate state. It is not, therefore, as to the fact of an intermediate state, but as to its nature that diversity of opinion exists among Christians.” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Part IV. Ch. 1 “State of the Soul after Death,” 724) Lisa is a middle-aged female who has worked all of her life as a server in a cafe. One day, while its rainy and cold, she has a car accident with an 18-wheeler truck. The truck slams into the side of her car pressing her against the side rails. She loses a lot of blood and is rushed to the hospital. Her husband meets her there. Realizing that it is too late and that death is near, he comforts her with these words, “your pain will be gone soon.” June is 90 years old.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Introduction to Divine Simplicity
    1 A Brief Introduction to Divine Simplicity [Notes adapted from Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, pp. 533-8] 1. What is divine simplicity? The claim that God is simple is an ancient one. It is endorsed by several of the early Christian fathers. It is defended by a variety of medieval Jewish, Christian and Islamic thinkers and also by many contemporary philosophers and theologians. But what might it mean to say that God is simple? A famous account of divine simplicity comes in St. Augustine’s The City of God. Here Augustine says: There is then one sole Good, which is simple, and therefore unchangeable; and that is God. By this Good all good things were created; but they are not simple, and for that reason they are changeable. … The reason why a nature is called simple is that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses, that there is no difference between what it is and what it has, as there is, for example, between a vessel and the liquid it contains, a body and its colour, the atmosphere and its light or heat, the soul and its wisdom. None of these is what it contains; the vessel is not the liquid, nor the body the colour, nor the atmosphere the light or heat; nor is the soul the same as its wisdom. (The City of God, XI, 10). Augustine shows us that when philosophers say that God is ‘simple’ they are saying two things: i) God is unchanging (immutable) ii) God does not possess different properties or attributes God’s essence and attributes are one and the same.
    [Show full text]